Minneapolis mayor to wed S.D. couple ...

Minneapolis mayor to wed S.D. couple challenging same-sex marriage ban

There are 22 comments on the TwinCities story from Apr 24, 2014, titled Minneapolis mayor to wed S.D. couple challenging same-sex marriage ban. In it, TwinCities reports that:

Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges will officiate at the weekend marriage of a lesbian couple from South Dakota as the women prepare to take part in a groundbreaking lawsuit to force their home state to recognize their union.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“A Frog's Worst Nightmare”

Since: Oct 13

West Monroe, La

#1 Apr 25, 2014
Betsy should keep her nose out of South Dakota's business.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#2 Apr 25, 2014
Uncle Si wrote:
Betsy should keep her nose out of South Dakota's business.
A little political grand standing wouldn't you say, Si? I don't see how this will help their case any but hey, go for it if you want to.

Oh but hey, who doesn't benefit from yet another class action suit?
Evilgelicalling

Philadelphia, PA

#3 Apr 25, 2014
Uncle Si wrote:
Betsy should keep her nose out of South Dakota's business.
Oh Cletus, the mayor in MN is not challenging S.D.'s backwardness.

That's the soon to be married couple of lesbian, S.D. residents who are doing that.

No charge.
Evilgelicalling

Philadelphia, PA

#4 Apr 25, 2014
cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
A little political grand standing wouldn't you say, Si? I don't see how this will help their case any but hey, go for it if you want to.
Oh but hey, who doesn't benefit from yet another class action suit?
Your marriage wasn't grandstanding; it was shotgun.

They get to be married.

Marrying out of state might well help them if some narrow ruling comes through that backwards S.D. must recognize marriages which are valid in other states.

It's not a class action lawsuit in that sense. You're mixed up.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#5 Apr 25, 2014
Evilgelicalling wrote:
<quoted text>
Your marriage wasn't grandstanding; it was shotgun.
They get to be married.
Marrying out of state might well help them if some narrow ruling comes through that backwards S.D. must recognize marriages which are valid in other states.
It's not a class action lawsuit in that sense. You're mixed up.
In the case of this mayor, it is indeed politically motivated and a form of grandstanding and vote getting.

THe best possible solution to all of this nonsense is to simply get the governments out of the marriage business. Because to them, that's what it is. A way to monitor people and generate revenue. Then take away the tax incentives for married people and the tax penalties as well.
Then leave marriage up to the churches to do with as they please.

As for a class action suit, the only one who benefits from that is the lawyers who file.
Evilgelicalling

Philadelphia, PA

#6 Apr 25, 2014
cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
In the case of this mayor, it is indeed politically motivated and a form of grandstanding and vote getting.
THe best possible solution to all of this nonsense is to simply get the governments out of the marriage business.
This isn't a theocracy. We don't confer federal and state and legal benefits on the basis of some clergyperson's intonations or, more likely, ravings. Nor do we permit polygamy or underage brides. Obviously the government plays a role in all these aspects of marriage. It's not unregulated, and it's not regulated by religion.(And by the way, the courts which do or would presumably oversee divorces are part of government.)

It's a monumentally stupid idea to "get government out of marriage."

The mayor in MN is not meddling in S.D. affairs, even if as you claim she seeks political gain _in MN_ by not being an ignorant bigot.(How times have changed.) No, it's the two lesbian residents of S.D. who are "meddling" in S.D. affairs.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#7 Apr 25, 2014
Evilgelicalling wrote:
<quoted text>
This isn't a theocracy. We don't confer federal and state and legal benefits on the basis of some clergyperson's intonations or, more likely, ravings. Nor do we permit polygamy or underage brides. Obviously the government plays a role in all these aspects of marriage. It's not unregulated, and it's not regulated by religion.(And by the way, the courts which do or would presumably oversee divorces are part of government.)
It's a monumentally stupid idea to "get government out of marriage."
The mayor in MN is not meddling in S.D. affairs, even if as you claim she seeks political gain _in MN_ by not being an ignorant bigot.(How times have changed.) No, it's the two lesbian residents of S.D. who are "meddling" in S.D. affairs.
You're right. This is not a theocracy fortunately.
Feeling the need to have your marriage vaildated by the government is what's monumentally stupid.
There is no need to have government continue to regulate marriage.
And regulating age limits is already covered under "age of consent" laws.
Polygamy laws...who cares. If some guy is dumb enough to want 5 wives,(or vice versa) that's his problem and theirs as well. I don't see a problem with it.
And yes, we currently do confer benefits based on some clergypersons intonations. Get married in most any church and you will be granted a license without a civil ceremony of any kind. As long as you cough up the money.
Personally I would have been fine with being married in a church or civil ceremony. But a church it was. And I was still forced to pay the state for the privilege. But conferring special benefits on people because they are married is basically discriminating against single folks.
It was designed as a way for government to insure that their minions are breeding. And it was indeed inspired by the religious beliefs at the time. Hence the reason for all of that "one man one woman" nonsense. I don't care who marries whom. I do care that the government still feels the need to stick their noses in it. As for divorce, it's just another way for lawyers to make money.

And I also agree that the mayor is not meddling in the affairs of SD.
Evilgelicalling

Philadelphia, PA

#8 Apr 25, 2014
cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy laws...who cares. If some guy is dumb enough to want 5 wives,(or vice versa) that's his problem and theirs as well. I don't see a problem with it.
And yes, we currently do confer benefits based on some clergypersons intonations. Get married in most any church and you will be granted a license without a civil ceremony of any kind. As long as you cough up the money.
No, a solemnizing ritual is not sufficient to have a marriage. The religious part is purely optional. The license part still must be done, one way or another. That part is not optional.

You are a theocrat since you're clearly arguing that access to the 1000+ federal rights and benefits of marriage may be conferred by some clergy person. Contract law cannot confer all these rights. That's not how it works. Or can work.

And an underage marriage by some "religious" nutcase might not run afoul of age of consent laws. The couple could just claim they don't have sex, or maybe even not have sex...but say that they're married. It's nutty. Of course the government (including courts) needs to be involved in such matters.

You "forgot" to explain how couples will get divorced - no court involvement in your concept, right?- why and how other countries will observe marriages of US citizens if those marriages are just from some corner church, why Social Security benefits, for example, should be extended to a spouse or offspring just on the say so of some cleric waving his hand.

Similarly, polygamy raises issues about the government paying out, for example, Social Security benefits to many spouses and many, many offspring (potentially.) It is obviously not economically feasible. Nevermind what happens in a divorce with five or six spouses all squabbling and demanding property or custody or alimony.

People who say we should "get government out of the marriage business" have no idea whatsoever about the actual consequences. It's a poorly considered, meaningless whim.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9 Apr 25, 2014
cantmakeitup wrote:
Then leave marriage up to the churches to do with as they please.
Marriage HASN'T belong to the Church in over a 100 years.......that's roughly how long, IF not longer the States have been issuing marriage licenses!!!

Why DON'T Evangelistic Fundamentalist keep their religious beliefs to themselves and STAY out of the Government's business!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10 Apr 25, 2014
cantmakeitup wrote:
And yes, we currently do confer benefits based on some clergypersons intonations. Get married in most any church and you will be granted a license without a civil ceremony of any kind.
Do you have some evidence to back up this claim? or is this just BS being spouted? I mean in order for a Church Clergy to even be able to sign a State issued marriage license, they MUST speak these words, "By the Power invested in me, By the State of______ and County of_____"......what the Church can provide the couple is a Holy Matrimony Certificate, but it means NOTHING to the State or Federal Government as far as having access to both State and Federal rights, benefits and privileges that go with a State issued marriage license!!!

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#11 Apr 25, 2014
Evilgelicalling wrote:
<quoted text>
No, a solemnizing ritual is not sufficient to have a marriage. The religious part is purely optional. The license part still must be done, one way or another. That part is not optional
.
It worked like that for many, many generations, and in many cultures, before there even were governments to generate revenue from anything they can think of. The "license part" is just an extension of a grab for money and control. Much of which was based on whatever is the current religious fad of those in power.
.
Evilgelicalling wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a theocrat since you're clearly arguing that access to the 1000+ federal rights and benefits of marriage may be conferred by some clergy person..
You are clearly not paying attention if you are calling me a theocrat. And yes, based on the word and signature of a religious figure, a couple of witnesses and a fistfull of money, the state can and does grant a marriage license to pretty much anybody. Which in turn grants all of those benefits you mention and apparently feel a need for.
As usual, it all comes down to money.
Evilgelicalling wrote:
<quoted text>
Contract law cannot confer all these rights. That's not how it works. Or can work.

Sure it can. But once again, it's all about the money.

[QUOTE who="Evilgelicalling "]<quoted text>

And an underage marriage by some "religious" nutcase might not run afoul of age of consent laws.
.
You are correct.
All of the marriage laws in the world will not stop the religious nutcase who wants to marry his 9 yr old step daughter. Or age of consent laws.

Bottom line, if you really need the governments approval to feel like you're married, maybe you should reconsider marriage. It's about love, devotion, faithfulness, dedication, being unselfish, and a host of other things, and has nothing whatsoever to do with any thing legal, or the "thousands" of legal benefits.,
Evilgelicalling

Philadelphia, PA

#12 Apr 25, 2014
cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
It worked like that for many, many generations, and in many cultures, before there even were governments to generate revenue....You are clearly not paying attention if you are calling me a theocrat. And yes, based on the word and signature of a religious figure, a couple of witnesses and a fistfull of money, the state can and does grant a marriage license to pretty much anybody. Which in turn grants all of those benefits you mention and apparently feel a need for....All of the marriage laws in the world will not stop the religious nutcase who wants to marry his 9 yr old step daughter. Or age of consent laws....Bottom line, if you really need the governments approval to feel like you're married, maybe you should reconsider marriage. It's about love, devotion, faithfulness, dedication, being unselfish, and a host of other things
How ridiculous.

Women were chattel for many generations and in many cultures. I suppose you are invoking that, too. We now have something of a social safety net, an improvement, as in Social Security. Many other rights and responsibilities of marriage are quite consequential. We don't grant Social Security survivor benefits or the other ones on the basis of some cleric's say so. And letting some cleric make such a determination

Laws have stopped underage marriage, especially in relation to what the situation would be if there were no such laws.

You again "forgot" to address what happens when there's a nasty divorce between spouses or between six spouses.

That last absurd paragraph is not an argument for "getting government out of marriage," it's an argument against marriage as being any different from two people just informally saying they love one another. It's an argument against marriage, period.

You don't make the first bit of sense. It's a ridiculous troll.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#13 Apr 25, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage HASN'T belong to the Church in over a 100 years.......that's roughly how long, IF not longer the States have been issuing marriage licenses!!!
Why DON'T Evangelistic Fundamentalist keep their religious beliefs to themselves and STAY out of the Government's business!!!
The only reason states got involved in marriage is because there was money in it and back then, the churches had substantially more control over the government than they do today. Leaders openly invoked the word of god (or gods) and the bible in order to justify their legal mandates. And 1,2 or more hundred years ago, it worked. So marriage laws made it easier to discriminate or limit who could, and could not marry. It was also a way for those with money to insure their money stayed in the family when they died. And of course, is has been used for many ages as a method of making deals between governments and/or wealthy families or royal houses. In others words, always, always, always follow the money.

And as I mentioned before, if you think I am evangelistic or fundamentalist, you haven't been paying attention. The closest I get to "church" or "god" is probably fly fishing in the middle of nowhere in a nice cold mountain stream that I can actually drink from.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#14 Apr 25, 2014
cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
In the case of this mayor, it is indeed politically motivated and a form of grandstanding and vote getting.
THe best possible solution to all of this nonsense is to simply get the governments out of the marriage business. Because to them, that's what it is. A way to monitor people and generate revenue. Then take away the tax incentives for married people and the tax penalties as well.
Then leave marriage up to the churches to do with as they please.
As for a class action suit, the only one who benefits from that is the lawyers who file.
you keep saying that same idiotic thing and i have to keep pointing out that only the govt CAN be in marriages as it is a legal binding contract religion and churches have absolutely nothing to do with marriage in any way...nothing. they may have their own rites of union but marriage is the purview of the state, always has been, always will be.

there is no nonesense at all, and the best way to deal with it is just make it legal for same sex couples to get married in the entire US.

and again you are wrong. all the gay people in SD will gain from being treated equal. as will other gay people in the US for movign this along in one more state. and all the peopl in teh US will benefit from it by strengthening marriage and getting us closer to our founding goals..

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#15 Apr 25, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage HASN'T belong to the Church in over a 100 years.......that's roughly how long, IF not longer the States have been issuing marriage licenses!!!
Why DON'T Evangelistic Fundamentalist keep their religious beliefs to themselves and STAY out of the Government's business!!!
marriage has never been the purview of the church. it has always been a state function.

the christian churches didn't even get into the marriage game until the 14th century or so and then only to bless the state sponsored marriage on the steps of the church, they didn't even want it inside the church...that tool another century or so...

history is fun!
Evilgelicalling

Philadelphia, PA

#16 Apr 25, 2014
cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
The only reason states got involved in marriage is because there was money in it and back then, the churches had substantially more control over the government than they do today.
Since you're not a theocrat you approve of this development.

Despite your apparently living in a 19th century, agrarian society everyone else has to deal with the complexities of modern life, such as who has hospital visitation rights, who gets the kids and property after a divorce, who qualifies for these funny, 20th century social safety net programs. All these questions involve laws and court proceedings, i.e., government. This is true even for those few instances which can be addressed by individually drawn up contracts for hospital visitation and the other 1000+ benefits and rights of marriage: Contract disputes wind up in court, i.e., the government.

If you think marriage is only for "the money" then you are free never to marry outside of your personal ritual before three other "libertarian" friends. Now that would be "libertarian."
Evilgelicalling

Philadelphia, PA

#17 Apr 25, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you keep saying that same idiotic thing and i have to keep pointing out that only the govt CAN be in marriages as it is a legal binding contract religion and churches have absolutely nothing to do with marriage in any way...nothing. they may have their own rites of union but marriage is the purview of the state, always has been, always will be.
there is no nonesense at all, and the best way to deal with it is just make it legal for same sex couples to get married in the entire US.
and again you are wrong. all the gay people in SD will gain from being treated equal. as will other gay people in the US for movign this along in one more state. and all the peopl in teh US will benefit from it by strengthening marriage and getting us closer to our founding goals..
I don't know this poster.

"Libertarian," Reverend Al, Rizzo, some other troll, or just garden variety nutcase?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#18 Apr 26, 2014
Evilgelicalling wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know this poster.
"Libertarian," Reverend Al, Rizzo, some other troll, or just garden variety nutcase?
which poster are you referring to?
Xstain Fumblementalist

Philadelphia, PA

#19 Apr 26, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>which poster are you referring to?
"cantmakeitup", the one you were replying to there.

A trollish sounding moniker.
Liberal

Chanhassen, MN

#20 Apr 26, 2014
Betsy will next marry a kangaroo and a snail.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Trump Bans Trans Military 3 min Davycrockett 40
John mccain stabs GOP in back 2 hr Davycrockett 5
I love waking up to a Trump presidency 2 hr Davycrockett 38
Teach our kids to hate them 3 hr cowboy chris 19
News Mohamed Noor is Proof That "Blue Lives" are a F... 3 hr cowboy chris 3
Liberals are trying to destroy america 16 hr Cat Man 78
Bye bye Betsy...Bye bye Betsy 17 hr Davycrockett 18

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages